ABSTRACT
Richard Valencia, in his 1997 book The Evolution of Deficit Thinking, compellingly argued that deficit thinking is the dominant paradigm that shapes U.S. educators’ explanations for widespread and persistent school failure among children from low-income homes and children of color:
The deficit thinking paradigm, as a whole, posits that students who fail in school do so because of alleged internal deficiencies (such as cognitive and/or motivational limitations) or shortcomings socially linked to the youngster-such a familial deficits and dysfunctions…. The popular “atrisk” construct, now entrenched in educational circles, views poor and working class children and their families (typically of color) as predominantly responsible for school failure, (p. xi)
Valencia argued, further, that such deficit thinking is deeply embedded in educational thought and practice and that it pervades schools that serve children from low-income homes and children of color. That is, even though virtually every U.S. school has a mission statement containing some form of the aphorism
“all children can learn,” actual practices and programs in these same schools are suffused with deficit views of the educability of children of color and children from low-income homes. The result of this pervasive deficit approach is that students from low-income homes and students of color routinely and overwhelmingly are tracked into low-level classes, identified for special education, segregated based on their home languages, subjected to more and harsher disciplinary actions; pushed out of the system and labeled “drop-outs,” underidentified as “gifted and talented,” immersed in negative and “subtractive” school climates, and sorted into a plethora of “remedial,” “compensatory,” or “special” programs (e.g., Oakes, Gamoran, & Page, 1992; Parker, 1993; Skiba, Peterson, & Williams, 1997; Valdés, 1998; Valenzuela, 1999).
